Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
September 28
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Cursed two.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- uploader had a series of album covers (including this) tagged as PD-self; no source; unlikely he is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 01:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Cursed blackout vinyl.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- uploader had a series of album covers (including these) tagged as PD-self; no source; unlikely he is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 01:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paiiz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Kondeh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Omirist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- * This is a photograph of a painting. The uploader states I am the manager and the owner of Mr. Mohammad Karami's website and took all pictures that use in his website so they have released their images of the artists work into PD. That may be fine, however as the image is just of the work the {{Non-free 2D art}} tag is a better license, (Perhaps even the {{Non-free promotional}} tag in this case). Source provided is now "parked" so WP:OTRS would be the only way to prove claims. Skier Dude (talk 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: Per my own nom (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 14#File:80Picture-129.jpg) for one of the editors other uploads, and mirrored by SkierDude here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kategoria Superiore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- corporate logo; no specific source; no indication it has been released as PD Skier Dude (talk 01:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:RASAU OLD SITES1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- picture of map - no source for the map Skier Dude (talk 02:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:S.Tomé.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- city seal; no source; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk 02:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. New evidence provided by MilborneOne - absent further explanation from the uploader, we will assume the photo belongs to the subject. No permission or proof has been provided. If the author were to reemerge from his 3 years hiatus on Wikipedia, and can provide a valid explanation (and at this point some WP:OTRS proof), he may feel free to reupload. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Agnieszka Vosloo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Admin declined "no source" tag after one week because the image is claimed as {{PD-self}}. Unfortunately that does not mean the uploader is the copyright holder. Many editors and admins feel that the generic wording of the {{PD-self}} tag is an indication of "source" because it says "I, the copyright holder of this work...", however that is not true. Take File:Alice-in-blunderland-cover-1907.png as an example. It is a book cover from 1907, it may be PD however it is doubtful the uploader is "the copyright holder of this work..." Numerous frame grabs, CD covers, one sheets, images from Getty, Corbis, AP and the interent have been uploaded as pd-self, scans of images from "personal collections" - the uploaders may be the "upload" source, but this is not what the "source" of the actual image is. In this case the uploader appears to have only uploaded two images, File:AWV.jpg and File:Agnieszka Vosloo.jpg. As such there is nothing to compare too - no indication of the source of this image, all there is to go on is the image name, the uploaders log, and a vague pd-self. The {{di-no source}} is clear, it establishes/understands there is a copyright tag of some sort but there is no source listed. In order to verify the license/copyright is correct we need the original source. This image has no clear source. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unlike with the 1907 book, you've presented no evidence that this photograph isn't an own work. Let's say that the creator comes back and adds the words "own work by uploader" to the image. Would your opinion of it change at all? If you say "I, the copyright holder...", you're claiming to be the copyright holder and thus the source. Individuals often place self license tags and include "own work by uploader" on images that are plainly taken from elsewhere, so inclusion of these four words wouldn't make it any more or less suspect. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:I am a photographer. If you uploaded one of my images using {{PD-self}} and an editor tagged it as {{di-no source}} and an admin said it was fine because when the uploader states "I, the copyright holder...", you're claiming to be the copyright holder and thus the source. than you would be guilty of endorsing a copyvio. And the inclusion of "I, the copyright holder..." make it very suspect when there is no source information. File:Alice-in-blunderland-cover-1907.png was just one example out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of mistagged images to be found on Wikipedia. And simply adding "own work by uploader" still does not aid me, who deals with this in real life as well, in establishing the source or the real author of numerous images found here. Do you believe that Getty, AP, UPI, Corbis or any of the other image houses would accept images whose only information was "Author: USER:Wabbywabbawoo" and "Source:self made"? Wikipedia is growing - it is a business. I take legal issues more serious than many do here, though I will say opyvios are, overall, being taken much more serious than they were 3 years ago. But by way of more examples - if you believe this image is fine because the source is implied as "I, the copyright holder..." than you must also believe these are all fine as well (in regards to being uploaded by the actual photographer and/or copyright holders): File:W.E.PereraWedding.jpg states it is a scan of a photo from 1929, yet the uplaoder claims "I, the copyright holder...", File:WGGB record.jpg is an image of a 45 and only says "self-made" and uses "I, the copyright holder...", File:Big Photo Aerosmith 007.jpg is also being claimed as "I, the copyright holder..." as are the uploaders other uploads such as File:Scan105hg.jpg, File:AerosmithStevenTyler.jpg and File:Yhjjhj.jpg. I do not randomly tag images such as these for the fun of it. As Angus said below, although they may have mistyped, the duplicate only had {{pd-self}} as well. No source was supplied on that either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader also uploaded this in duplicate at File:AWV.jpg. Just as the wrong version gets protected, so the wrong version got deleted. That one had more information. The image description page read "== Summary == [break] Author [break] == Licensing == [break] {{PD-self}}". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: at [1] the image is credited Photo Courtesy of Agniezka Wojtowicz-Vosloo MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had seen that as well, another reason why I tagged this one. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Like You'll Never See Me Again.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:AliciaKeys LikeYou'llNeverSeeMeAgain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Alicia Keys - ''Like You'll Never See Me Again'' selfmade cover2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- Unused CD cover that claims it is self made and tagged as {{PD-self}}. Unfortunately that does not mean the uploader is the copyright holder of the image used to make this CD cover. The generic wording of the {{PD-self}} tag is *not* a true indication of "source". (NOTE: The third version is not linking correctly because of the '' being used. The URI works fine however to vierify - Alicia Keys - Like You'll Never See Me Again selfmade cover2.jpg)
Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:10wtcie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Extremely vague summary that says there is "no source" as it is from the uploaders computer and taken on a digicam. Based on the user page this is not an image of the uploader. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:166681105-d7e11a4b3b1c1c229e497c6d5728515c 4c9b95a0-scaled.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unused advertisement for a UTV show, and claimed as {{PD-self}}. Another case where the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." wording does not establish what the source actually is. Summary simply says "tmk". Users other image uploads were File:Kareenadondeletedscene.jpg and File:Plive.jpg, both Speedied as copyvios. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked copyright page does not indicate a CC-BY-3.0 license. Non-free license on the referenced page (restricting commercial use and no provision for derivative works). ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a bunch more images from hmdb.org. See this search. Should this PUF be expanded to include them all? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete either via F3, F9, or F11: Source page copyright informaiton sates that images may be commercially used however you may not use or provide access to more than 25% of the content of any particular country, state, province, county, parish, shire, prefecture, region, department or city for commercial use without written permission from the copyright holder. It also states Some images have been added to the database under rights that restrict their reproduction elsewhere. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thought: could there be an OTRS ticket placing the images from this site under an appropriate free license? Can anyone with an OTRS account check? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1910s decade portrait.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is an unused collage of images which may be in PD, however at least one of the sources was deleted (File:Princip arrested.jpg) for not having a copyright status. The uploader makes a statement that they are not "claiming or specifically stating" they hold the copyright however they are using the {{PD-self}} tag which asserts they are the copyright holder. The uploader has also been blocked as a "Vandalism-only account" Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Mother 1994.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
,_1997.jpg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
,_1997.jpg){kind=link}
,_1997.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3APossibly+unfree+files%2F2010+September+28%23File%3ALe+Dejeuner+%28after+Manet%29%2C+1997.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
,_1997.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_1997.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Flute Player, 1998.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Claimed as self made ,though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Spring of Life,2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claimed as self made and pd tag applied, though is a painting by the artist Richard Winkler. Acather96 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:1920's class.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:Cyo team.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Father peter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:MC kids.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Olmc church photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Old olmc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)
- File:Elem.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs)
- Unused images from various dates. All are claimed as {{PD-self}}, but it is somewhat doubtful the uploader is the copyright holder of this images. It might be Mt Carmel School or it might be the photographers, such as "Wyandotte - Weller" who appear to the be the photographers and/or company that took the File:1920's class.jpg photograph. They have uploaded several images from Mt Carmel as well as images from elsewhere (Such as File:4mass3.jpg) all claiming "I, the copyright holder...". Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These should be {{PD-US-no-renewal}} where appropriate, which would seem to be the first four. Even the most paranoid of editors cannot reasonably suppose that school class photographs and similar were the subject of copyright renewals. The sixth might also be although here there is room for doubt. It isn't self-evident that the fifth or seventh were ever published. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can, and do, state that many school photographs/class photos can be, and are, under copyright. If the first image was taken in the 1920's I am doubting the uploader is actually the photographer *or* the copyright holder even though they claim they are. The last photo was taken in 2008, and it may be the uploader own work but base don these other uploads I question it. That is the first problem, as with numerous other images an uploader just tags some sort of "self" license on it...but that doesn't mean it's true. What it means is it is "convenient" and "easy".(unless they are repeat offender" with a history of upping copyvios) The second problem is the source...there isn't really one used. As I clearly stated, it is doubtful the uploader is the copyright holder on these so I do not count a "self" license as a true source. These have come from the school or the school archives. Do you know what the *exact* source is? Who took the photographs? If they came from the archives are all images from the school archives PD? Can the school submit and OTRS for all images? If they did not come from the school archives did they come from private collectors? Garage sales? The local town historian? I can't tell any of that and I seriously doubt you can either. Right now all anyone can do is guess. But would your guess hold up if a copyright holder stepped forward and decided to being a lawsuit? You may not remember, you may not be old enough to, or you may not care - I am not making any judgment I am just saying - many years ago the song "Happy Birthday to Me" was used on TV and the company who aired it/produced the show was contacted and asked for payment for it's use. The music was put together in the late 1800's and it was copyrighted in the early 1930's. Using the same concept you are using the company said "What do you mean? It Public Domain!" But it actually was not - the author was still very much alive at the time. And even today you need to obtain a license to use that song. So really, don't just assume old photos are in the public domain. And 2008 is not that old, neither is 1920 in the world of copyrights. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TVS Motor Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo, uploader is probably not the copyright holder Acather96 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.